Karl Rove leaves White House post, stands to profit

August 20, 2007

President Bush's right-hand man for the last decade and a half has decided to leave the administration by the end of the month. Karl Rove, a close friend of the president and the man who helped orchestrate his two successful runs for the White House, has decided to leave his job as an adviser to the president with less than a year and a half remaining in Bush's second term. So what's next for Rove? He's already announced he has plans to write a book and said his departure is based, in part, by a desire to spend more time with his family. He's not expected to work for any candidate seeking the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Speculation is a big part of life in the nation's capital and chances are there are people speculating as to the 'real' reason Rove decided to leave when he did. Maybe he's still feeling the sting of testifying five times before a federal grand jury in connection with the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame? Could he simply be distancing himself from Bush as the president's popularity continues to sink to new lows? Or could it be he simply decided he's done all he can and it's time to leave? Regardless, Rove is leaving the administration on his own terms and that decision could prove to be a profitable one. He can expect to make a decent sum of money from his book and chances are he will command high five-figure or low six-figure fees for speaking engagements. He could also land a profitable seat on a board or two and, eventually, could become a well-paid consultant with any number of firms. By leaving now Rove is still at the top of his game and influence. And by not backing a candidate for 2008, he avoids the risk of selecting the wrong one and tarnishing his reputation as a top rate political strategist. The bottom line is that longtime public service can become a profitable way to make a living after that service ends. Whatever Rove's future holds, chances are he'll be well compensated for whatever new path he decides to follow. Watertown Public Opinion Lesson learned: Campaign finance laws vital to system Barring a reversal on appeal, Roger Hunt might never have to tell the people of South Dakota who contributed $750,000 to the VoteYesForLife campaign. The legal particulars were complicated, and Hunt's case relied on the difference between a contribution and a disbursement and the difference between a ballot initiative committee and a corporation formed only to support a ballot initiative. The law might allow Hunt to keep his secret forever, and the loophole he found - since closed - might be legitimate. But by virtually any measure, it's not right. If any among us could reasonably be expected to be ethically bound by the law's spirit rather than its letter, they are those elected to create the laws that govern us. Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell wrote that even if Hunt formed Promising Future Inc. solely to conceal the donor's identity, he did not violate the letter of the law. Promising Future is a corporation wholly owned by the unnamed donor and with the same corporate address as Hunt's Brandon law office. If this outcome does not show legislators once and for all that campaign finance laws are critical legislation not to be passed as an afterthought, then nothing will. This is a hard way to learn an important lesson, but the South Dakota Legislature must send a strong, consistent message as we go forward. Those who would hope to affect the outcomes of our elections should do so openly, or not at all. Sioux Falls Argus Leader